Israel's War
Faruque Ahmed | 09.05.2005 05:28 | Analysis | World
You are right on the money. I have encountered an Israelite at the Sydney Uni other day. Virtually He was molesting young student's brain. However, he was in trouble when I spoke up. I intend to post an article about him later as I have to be in the Federal Court tomorrow morning and lacking of time right now.
From: "taxirevolution"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 9:34 pm
Subject: Re: A Zionist War: The Israeli origins of Bush II's war
You are right on the money. I have encountered an Israelite at the Sydney Uni other day. Virtually He was molesting young student's brain. However, he was in trouble when I spoke up. I intend to post an article about him later as I have to be in the Federal Court tomorrow morning and lacking of time right now.
From: "Jodie"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 4:36 am
Subject: A Zionist War: The Israeli origins of Bush II's war
From: Our bill of rights
Date: Thu May 5, 2005 2:24 pm
Subject: A Zionist War,The Israeli origins of Bush II's war
A Zionist War
By Kristoffer Larsson
5-2-5
Some weeks ago I happened to watch Oliver Stone's great production
Born the Fourth of July for the second time. In the movie, Ron Kovic
(played by the handsome as always Tom Cruise) signs up for the army.
He wants to go to Vietnam to fight Communism. "Better dead then red"
is his motto. He leaves for Vietnam as a well-trained, young, brave
American standing up for democracy fully prepared to die in order to
fight the Communist threat wherever it arises. When he comes back
from Vietnam, he is paralyzed from the waist and down.
But he's not meet by his fellow citizens as a hero. Instead he is met
by demonstrators in his own age setting American flags on fire. He
doesn't understand why. Expressing his hatred for the demonstrators
when at the Bronx Veteran Hospital, he soon comes to realize the
black nurses have quite another view of the war. As a male nurse
explains to him, "Vietnam is the White man's war, the rich man's
war."
Later, as many other Americans in Vietnam, Kovic came to realize that
war was not about democracy at all. Young Americans like himself were
sent there to oppress a people fighting for their own freedom.
Some decades later, the world's biggest war-machine is now under way
with genocide once again, this time in Iraq. The mass slaughtering is
implemented by young boys who aren't really sure why they're there,
but it's ordered by the White House on behalf of a ruthless, powerful
elite. It was no surprise that Iraq didn't possess any weapons of
mass destruction. After all the U.S. is not stupid enough to attack a
state that actually so does - it could be dangerous! But although we
for sure know that this war indeed was not a "preemptive war" or
about "liberating" Iraq, the "war for oil"-theory - adopted by the
greater majority in the anti-war movement - loses ground by the day.
One ought to at least question if oil was the main reason for going
to war. Oil tastes good, but the Americans want cheap oil, not
expensive. The occupation of Iraq cost the American tax payers more
then 5.8 Billion dollars a month. [1] Thus, it would have been
cheaper to support dictators in the region instead of overthrowing
them - with the result of almost no oil at all. But this is not a
White man's war. Nor is it the oil companies' war. No, this is a
Zionist war.
In his outstanding essay The Shadow of Zog, Israeli author Israel
Shamir writes about what was probably the real reason for invading
Iraq:
"As the head of the Occupation Administration, Jay Garner's task is
to create a new Iraq, friendly to Israel. The Jerusalem Post, a hard-
line Zionist daily published by Conrad Black, friend of Pinochet and
Sharon, carried an interview with one of his wannabe Quislings, Ahmad
Chalabi's right hand man, Musawi.
'Musawi talks enthusiastically of his hopes for the closest possible
ties with Israel. There will be no place for Palestinians in the new
Iraq, for the large Palestinian community is regarded by INC leaders
(and presumably by their Zionist instructors) as a loathsome fifth
column.
Instead, an 'arc of peace'; would run from Turkey, through Iraq and
Jordan to Israel, creating a new fulcrum in the Middle East.'
The Occupation Regime in Iraq was installed by the US army in the
interests of Zionists, and it may be rightly called ZOG, Zionist
Occupation Government if anything."[2]
The war on Iraq - just like the U.S.-threats against Iran - can be
traced to Israel's interests in the region. Israel and its powerful
lobby has for long been after the U.S. to deal with the Iraqi regime.
The destabilization of the region is more favorable to Israel than it
is to the U.S. After discussing "what is possibly the unacknowledged
real reason and motive behind the policy" of going to war on Iraq,
historian Paul W. Schroeder, in a footnote, wrote that if this is
accurate
More-
http://rense.com/general64/azionistwar.htm
The Israeli origins of Bush II's war
By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
If you find this essay of value, please send a donation of $3 to TLD.
More information appears below.
While the neoconservatives were the driving force behind the American
invasion of Iraq and the consequent efforts to bring about regime
change throughout the Middle East, the idea for such a war did not
originate with American neocon thinkers but rather in Israel. An
obvious linkage exists between the war position of the neocons and
what has long been a strategy of the Israeli Right and, to a lesser
extent, of the Israeli mainstream.
The idea of a Middle East war had been bandied about in Israel for
many years as a means of enhancing Israeli security. War would serve
two purposes. It would enhance Israel's external security by
weakening and splintering Israel's neighbors. Moreover, such a war
and the consequent weakening of Israel's external enemies could help
resolve the internal Palestinian demographic problem, since the
Palestinian resistance has derived material and moral support from
Israel's neighboring states.
A brief look at the history of the Zionist movement and its goals
will help to provide an understanding of this issue. The Zionist goal
of creating an exclusive Jewish state in Palestine was complicated by
the fundamental problem that the country was already settled with a
mostly non-Jewish population. Despite public rhetoric to the
contrary, the idea of expelling the indigenous Palestinian population
(euphemistically referred to as a "transfer") was an integral part of
the Zionist effort to found a Jewish national state in Palestine.
"The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its
very beginnings, first appearing in Theodore Herzl's diary," Israeli
historian Tom Segev observes. "In practice, the Zionists began
executing a mini-transfer from the time they began purchasing the
land and evacuating the Arab tenants.... 'Disappearing' the Arabs lay
at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition
of its existence.... With few exceptions, none of the Zionists
disputed the desirability of forced transfer ?or its morality."
However, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly proclaim their
goal of mass expulsion because "this would cause the Zionists to lose
the world's sympathy." [1]
The challenge was to find an opportune time to initiate the mass-
expulsion process when it would not incur the world's condemnation.
In the late 1930s, Ben-Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal
times is possible in revolutionary times; and if at this time the
opportunity is missed and what is possible in such great hours is not
carried out ?a whole world is lost." [2] Those "revolutionary times"
would come with the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, when the Zionists
were able to expel 750,000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of the
indigenous population) and thus achieve an overwhelmingly Jewish
state, though the area did not include the entirety of Palestine, or
the "Land of Israel," which Zionist leaders thought necessary for a
viable country.
The opportunity to grab additional land came as a result of the 1967
war; however, the occupation of that territory brought with it the
problem of a large Palestinian population. World opinion was now
totally opposed to forced population transfers, equating such an
activity with the unspeakable horror of Nazism. According to Norman
Finkelstein, the landmark Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949,
had "unequivocally prohibited deportation" of civilians under
occupation. [3] Since the 1967 war, the major issue in Israeli
politics has been what to do with that conquered territory and its
Palestinian population.
Because Israel's neighbors opposed the Zionist project of creating an
exclusivist Jewish state, the idea of weakening and dissolving those
neighbors was not an idea just of the Israeli Right but a central
Zionist goal from a much earlier period, promoted by David Ben-Gurion
himself. As Saleh Abdel-Jawwad, a professor at Birzeit University in
Ramallah, Palestine, writes:
More- http://www.thornwalker.com:16080/ditch/snieg_isrorgs.htm
or
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freeamericanow/message/20836
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 9:34 pm
Subject: Re: A Zionist War: The Israeli origins of Bush II's war
You are right on the money. I have encountered an Israelite at the Sydney Uni other day. Virtually He was molesting young student's brain. However, he was in trouble when I spoke up. I intend to post an article about him later as I have to be in the Federal Court tomorrow morning and lacking of time right now.
From: "Jodie"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 4:36 am
Subject: A Zionist War: The Israeli origins of Bush II's war
From: Our bill of rights
Date: Thu May 5, 2005 2:24 pm
Subject: A Zionist War,The Israeli origins of Bush II's war
A Zionist War
By Kristoffer Larsson
5-2-5
Some weeks ago I happened to watch Oliver Stone's great production
Born the Fourth of July for the second time. In the movie, Ron Kovic
(played by the handsome as always Tom Cruise) signs up for the army.
He wants to go to Vietnam to fight Communism. "Better dead then red"
is his motto. He leaves for Vietnam as a well-trained, young, brave
American standing up for democracy fully prepared to die in order to
fight the Communist threat wherever it arises. When he comes back
from Vietnam, he is paralyzed from the waist and down.
But he's not meet by his fellow citizens as a hero. Instead he is met
by demonstrators in his own age setting American flags on fire. He
doesn't understand why. Expressing his hatred for the demonstrators
when at the Bronx Veteran Hospital, he soon comes to realize the
black nurses have quite another view of the war. As a male nurse
explains to him, "Vietnam is the White man's war, the rich man's
war."
Later, as many other Americans in Vietnam, Kovic came to realize that
war was not about democracy at all. Young Americans like himself were
sent there to oppress a people fighting for their own freedom.
Some decades later, the world's biggest war-machine is now under way
with genocide once again, this time in Iraq. The mass slaughtering is
implemented by young boys who aren't really sure why they're there,
but it's ordered by the White House on behalf of a ruthless, powerful
elite. It was no surprise that Iraq didn't possess any weapons of
mass destruction. After all the U.S. is not stupid enough to attack a
state that actually so does - it could be dangerous! But although we
for sure know that this war indeed was not a "preemptive war" or
about "liberating" Iraq, the "war for oil"-theory - adopted by the
greater majority in the anti-war movement - loses ground by the day.
One ought to at least question if oil was the main reason for going
to war. Oil tastes good, but the Americans want cheap oil, not
expensive. The occupation of Iraq cost the American tax payers more
then 5.8 Billion dollars a month. [1] Thus, it would have been
cheaper to support dictators in the region instead of overthrowing
them - with the result of almost no oil at all. But this is not a
White man's war. Nor is it the oil companies' war. No, this is a
Zionist war.
In his outstanding essay The Shadow of Zog, Israeli author Israel
Shamir writes about what was probably the real reason for invading
Iraq:
"As the head of the Occupation Administration, Jay Garner's task is
to create a new Iraq, friendly to Israel. The Jerusalem Post, a hard-
line Zionist daily published by Conrad Black, friend of Pinochet and
Sharon, carried an interview with one of his wannabe Quislings, Ahmad
Chalabi's right hand man, Musawi.
'Musawi talks enthusiastically of his hopes for the closest possible
ties with Israel. There will be no place for Palestinians in the new
Iraq, for the large Palestinian community is regarded by INC leaders
(and presumably by their Zionist instructors) as a loathsome fifth
column.
Instead, an 'arc of peace'; would run from Turkey, through Iraq and
Jordan to Israel, creating a new fulcrum in the Middle East.'
The Occupation Regime in Iraq was installed by the US army in the
interests of Zionists, and it may be rightly called ZOG, Zionist
Occupation Government if anything."[2]
The war on Iraq - just like the U.S.-threats against Iran - can be
traced to Israel's interests in the region. Israel and its powerful
lobby has for long been after the U.S. to deal with the Iraqi regime.
The destabilization of the region is more favorable to Israel than it
is to the U.S. After discussing "what is possibly the unacknowledged
real reason and motive behind the policy" of going to war on Iraq,
historian Paul W. Schroeder, in a footnote, wrote that if this is
accurate
More-
http://rense.com/general64/azionistwar.htm The Israeli origins of Bush II's war
By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
If you find this essay of value, please send a donation of $3 to TLD.
More information appears below.
While the neoconservatives were the driving force behind the American
invasion of Iraq and the consequent efforts to bring about regime
change throughout the Middle East, the idea for such a war did not
originate with American neocon thinkers but rather in Israel. An
obvious linkage exists between the war position of the neocons and
what has long been a strategy of the Israeli Right and, to a lesser
extent, of the Israeli mainstream.
The idea of a Middle East war had been bandied about in Israel for
many years as a means of enhancing Israeli security. War would serve
two purposes. It would enhance Israel's external security by
weakening and splintering Israel's neighbors. Moreover, such a war
and the consequent weakening of Israel's external enemies could help
resolve the internal Palestinian demographic problem, since the
Palestinian resistance has derived material and moral support from
Israel's neighboring states.
A brief look at the history of the Zionist movement and its goals
will help to provide an understanding of this issue. The Zionist goal
of creating an exclusive Jewish state in Palestine was complicated by
the fundamental problem that the country was already settled with a
mostly non-Jewish population. Despite public rhetoric to the
contrary, the idea of expelling the indigenous Palestinian population
(euphemistically referred to as a "transfer") was an integral part of
the Zionist effort to found a Jewish national state in Palestine.
"The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its
very beginnings, first appearing in Theodore Herzl's diary," Israeli
historian Tom Segev observes. "In practice, the Zionists began
executing a mini-transfer from the time they began purchasing the
land and evacuating the Arab tenants.... 'Disappearing' the Arabs lay
at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition
of its existence.... With few exceptions, none of the Zionists
disputed the desirability of forced transfer ?or its morality."
However, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly proclaim their
goal of mass expulsion because "this would cause the Zionists to lose
the world's sympathy." [1]
The challenge was to find an opportune time to initiate the mass-
expulsion process when it would not incur the world's condemnation.
In the late 1930s, Ben-Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal
times is possible in revolutionary times; and if at this time the
opportunity is missed and what is possible in such great hours is not
carried out ?a whole world is lost." [2] Those "revolutionary times"
would come with the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, when the Zionists
were able to expel 750,000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of the
indigenous population) and thus achieve an overwhelmingly Jewish
state, though the area did not include the entirety of Palestine, or
the "Land of Israel," which Zionist leaders thought necessary for a
viable country.
The opportunity to grab additional land came as a result of the 1967
war; however, the occupation of that territory brought with it the
problem of a large Palestinian population. World opinion was now
totally opposed to forced population transfers, equating such an
activity with the unspeakable horror of Nazism. According to Norman
Finkelstein, the landmark Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949,
had "unequivocally prohibited deportation" of civilians under
occupation. [3] Since the 1967 war, the major issue in Israeli
politics has been what to do with that conquered territory and its
Palestinian population.
Because Israel's neighbors opposed the Zionist project of creating an
exclusivist Jewish state, the idea of weakening and dissolving those
neighbors was not an idea just of the Israeli Right but a central
Zionist goal from a much earlier period, promoted by David Ben-Gurion
himself. As Saleh Abdel-Jawwad, a professor at Birzeit University in
Ramallah, Palestine, writes:
More-
http://www.thornwalker.com:16080/ditch/snieg_isrorgs.htm or
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freeamericanow/message/20836
Faruque Ahmed
Comments
Display the following 7 comments